Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 24 Jun 1976

Vol. 291 No. 12

Regulation of Banks (Remuneration and Conditions of Employment) (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1976— Second Stage.

Minister for Labour (Mr. M. O'Leary)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

No other employer/employee relationship has invoked more State intervention than has our banking sector over recent years. The Bill, at present before the House is, in fact, the fourth legislative measure which has been prepared by both the present and former Administrations to regulate bank pay. For the benefit of those who may criticise the present legislation, I might mention that the measure prepared by the previous Administration was far more stringent in its possible effects in so far as penalties were imposed on the bank employees and their trade union.

I have said that the banking sector has seen a good deal of State intervention over recent years. Basically, this has occurred not because of any desire on the part of the State authorities to so intervene but because it was recognised that the repercussions of settlements in an important national service like banking at sensitive points in the life of national agreements—either in the preparatory or balloting stage or on later phases of a national agreement, could be decisive.

The banks and their employees are, of course, not parties to the national agreement. Most people who have considered the matter will I think agree that no pay settlement of a national character is without followon effect. I would not maintain that an agreement by the banks and their employees must be a replica of any national agreement because, of course, the banking service has certain unique features. Nobody in Ireland, however, can deny that unless the remuneration and methods by which we allocate payment to ourselves follow or at least seek to follow common criteria, then we would entrench rather than eliminate the deep inequalities which still divide our society.

I accept that there are those who feel it is unfair that they should be bound by the terms of a national bargain in whose preparation they did not participate. But if any consensus is to emerge all of us must accept that increases in our remuneration must relate to a broad pattern. It was in acknowledgement of what was seen as being in the national interest —namely, to assist in the strengthening of this consensus—that Dáil Members who for the most part had no part in the drawing-up of the agreement agreed to be bound by the terms of any national bargain reached.

While the final decision on whether a national agreement awaits the outcome of the special delegate conference of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on 3rd July next, none can seriously doubt that participants in wage negotiations over the next few weeks must consider the impact that their settlements might have on the outcome of that important meeting.

Deputies are aware that balloting on that national agreement to be decided on 3rd July is in progress. In fact members of the largest union in the country begin balloting this morning. It will be understood then that it is important to ensure that any current negotiations should not influence adversely the outcome of the national ballot.

Deputies have legitimately expressed concern at Question Time here every other day on the present high level of unemployment. It cannot be said too often that the reduction of the present unacceptably high unemployment figures requires that our industrial costs be kept as low as possible so that our economy can participate on the most advantageous terms possible in the export markets with our trading partners in the EEC. Although wage increases are not the sole cause of cost increases they do form a significant proportion.

The Bill in no way impedes continuation of negotiation between the banks and their employers for a new 1976 bank pay agreement. As Deputies are aware such negotiations are continuing within the Banks Joint Industrial Council. I am sure that I express the wish of all Deputies when I say that a bank strike at this juncture can do grievous damage to the economy at this critical point.

This Bill is purely a holding operation for a limited period. It may only come into operation on a day to be appointed by order and will in any event expire on 30th November, 1976, or on an earlier date to be appointed by me. The aim of this holding operation is to ensure that a pay agreement to be negotiated by the banks and their staffs will conform generally with the pattern of settlements emerging for other workers. Contravention or failure by the banks to comply with the terms of any orders made by me under the Bill will constitute an offence which would render the banks on conviction, liable to heavy fines. There are no penalties of any sort directed against bank employees or their representatives.

I would take this opportunity of asking the IBOA to withdraw their strike notice to allow time for a review of the difficulties which have arisen in the course of the present negotiations.

I do not want to make an order bringing this Act into operation. Whether I must do so or not will depend on the banks and the IBOA.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Before I embark on my contribution I should like to ask a question in view of the rather grave departure of the Minister from normal procedure. He did not make any attempt to explain to us the powers that will be given to him in the order or how the order would take effect. He merely referred to the Bill as "a holding operation". Would the order he is being empowered to make in this Bill be a freezing of wages for a section of the people for a period not longer than 30th November?

Mr. M. O'Leary

I will let the Deputy make his speech.

Mr. Colley

Would it be accepted that on a Second Stage speech it is the invariable practice for a Minister to deal with the major aspects of the Bill and to explain them? The Minister failed to do this. Presumably there is some reason for that, but in the absence of his doing so, surely it is not unreasonable for Deputies at this stage to ask him to explain the major provisions of the Bill? If that were done the debate might be short-circuited.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I have done my best to explain the provisions of the Bill but in the course of the debate if Deputies wish to put queries they can be assured they will be answered when I come to reply.

Mr. Colley

As the Minister has been away and presumably does not know what is happening——

Mr. M. O'Leary

This is the third time this Bill has been before the House.

Mr. Colley

This is an entirely different Bill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There will be a Committee Stage.

Mr. Halligan

This is not Question Time.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

There is a major difference between this piece of legislation and the others introduced by the Minister for Labour. Apparently the Minister is not prepared to explain now what we believe his powers will be in the order he will be enpowered to make—obviously a wage freeze mechanism.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I will take a careful note of all the points made during the debate and I will answer them when I come to reply. That is the appropriate thing to do.

Mr. Colley

It is also appropriate at the opening of the Second Stage of a Bill that the Minister would explain the major provisions in it.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

In his very brief contribution on a Bill which has grave significance, the Minister did not explain his and the Government's approach to the principle of the rights of individuals and of trade unions to negotiate. This demonstrates a major turn about by the Labour Party Deputies in the House, and later I will quote from previous debates in the House and from the speches made by them which bear no relation to the stand they are now taking.

I was amused this morning to hear some of the points made by some of the speakers on the guillotine motion. They referred to the Bill and to the threatened bank dispute. May I at this point express my desire and that of my party that this serious situation will be prevented from arising? May we add our voices to those of other people who are concerned that a bank dispute will not occur at a time when our economy can well do without it? The memory of the last bank dispute is painfully clear from the point of view of its effects on so many Irish people and Irish business.

I want to express clearly my party's opposition to the Bill and in doing so I should like to correct the impression conveyed here this morning that our attitude now is a contradiction in terms of our stand on the last two points of legislation introduced by the Minister for Labour in this respect during the lifetime of this Government. On the last two occasions the legislation was linked to the national pay agreement—to keep increases within the terms of that agreement.

I would point out that my party initiated the national pay agreement concept. We are committed to supporting it and will continue to do so. We realise the necessity for such an agreement at the present time. Our opposition here is against the principle contained in this Bill which was not in either of the two previous pieces of legislation in this respect. The Minister is being empowered to bring before the House an order whereby he can freeze wages mandatorily for a certain section of the community. In circumstances which are not yet known to any of us he may well be withdrawing the negotiating rights of a trade union as well as the negotiating rights of the individual.

The delegate conference of Congress is due to be held on July 3rd when voting will take place on the proposed national pay agreement. Therefore in the present circumstances we see the Bill both in the context of our having or not having a national wage agreement. I have outlined this party's stand in regard to national pay agreements. If we consider the Bill on the basis that there will be no such agreement this year we realise that the Minister is being empowered to prevent one group of people from negotiating in an entirely new situation. In addition to that, it is our considered opinion that the farce and the comic opera which was organised here this morning by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach was part of the reason for bringing in so quickly this piece of legislation. Deputy Kelly was telling us all the good things that this Government have done. He spoke about the national interest but went on to tell us why Ministers and backbenchers on his side of the House need summer holidays soon. In other words, the national interest was pushed aside.

Our stand in this regard is very clear. We, too, would like the benefit of these breaks but let us be sincere about putting the national interest first. We are prepared to go along with the Minister for Labour should he wish to introduce legislation tying any group of people to national wage agreements. We have taken such action in the past and are prepared to repeat it. In the case before us the obvious solution was to hold the legislation, to make every effort to have postponed any industrial disruption within the banking service.

Without going into the seriousness of such a situation at this stage, I wish to digress for a moment to compliment the Minister on his appointment to the presidency of the ILO. I wish him well in that office and trust he will uphold the already high standard set by the two former Irish holders of that office. It is an onerous office, one which has its difficulties and, no doubt, on returning home to this country the Minister's disappointment was very great. I refer to the way in which some of his colleagues had behaved in the typical bull-at-the gate fashion while negotiations were proceeding. Again this is part of the reason why we are opposed to the principle of the Bill. We are opposed, also, to the Bill on the grounds that it is a continuation of a very badlyhandled industrial relations situation.

On Thursday night last the Minister for Finance created chaos when at a Fine Gael meeting in a Dublin constituency, and with widespread radio coverage, he launched an attack on certain people. I am satisfied that that attack hardened the thinking of bank officials and mitigated against their sense of patriotism being appealed to. These are a very responsible group of people. I am convinced that they realise the serious economic difficulties we are facing, but when a Minister for State is seen to be adopting an attitude of arrogance, of constantly whipping people, even moderate people can become militants. This action on the part of the Minister was major contributing factor to the breakdown the following day in the negotiations. One can assume that the major part of these discussions would have centred around the comments of the Minister.

When replying, perhaps the Minister for Labour will tell us what positive and sensible steps were taken before Thursday night and since then to endeavour to avoid a strike that none of us wishes to see taking place. Industrial relations and human relations are very important social factors within our society. By this tirade the Minister for Finance set an example of how not to win friends or influence people in the way they should be influenced. We are entitled to ask whether there was a desire on the part of the Minister to escalate the probability of a strike. Is it possible, knowing the strain and delays involved in the payment of accounts in some Departments, that it may have relieved him and, in the absence of the Minister for Labour, he may well have tried to escalate or speed up the possibility of a strike. I ask that question because I would hate to think that we would have a Minister for Finance who could be irresponsible enough for anybody to suspect his motives. But, whatever were the motives, his performance left a lot to be desired.

Our objection is to the principles contained in this Bill, empowering a Minister to freeze the wages of a group of people, withdrawing their individual rights, withdrawing the rights of that trade union. And an order can be made by him. I am surprised that he did not spell out more clearly what is contained in this Bill. If we assume that the Parliamentary Secretary proceeds with his determination to close this House next week for the summer recess, if we assume that the Minister for Labour makes an order a day, or days, after that adjournment, that order may be placed on the table of this House and can be opposed any time within 21 sitting days. If one examines that, it means that, first of all, there will be a few months during which there will be no sitting days and no way that an Opposition can oppose the order. If we assume a return somewhere around late September or early October—we can only assume when the resumption will be—then those 21 sitting days would take one almost to the 30th of November. Why the necessity for that section of the Bill? What purpose does it serve?

May I refer to the Government's rather stupid intervention in this dispute, the threat of legislation on Thursday evening last, the introduction of legislation at a delicate stage? I understand a meeting is taking place this morning. I said earlier that we hope this meeting will achieve at least the postponement of any industrial action until everybody knows the position of the national wage agreement. Such a postponement would have one result only for all concerned, one of acclamation from a public generally scared of what such a bank strike would bring. Can one blame them, because it would hit the very root of all businesses, would create a major disruption in agriculture, in industry generally, in retail sales and, at a very important time of the year, in tourism?

Memories of the last bank strike are still very clear and painful for many people. There were many individuals who exploited the situation. There was a jobber of some sorts who succeeded in taking large sums of money from co-operative marts whom we understand is now living in luxury in Australia or elsewhere. Companies went into liquidation, causing major losses where cheques had been cashed in retail outlets by people who wanted ready cash. The operation suited both people. Imagine what chaos there would be on this occasion with the evidence, bearing in mind today's statements by the Garda that the crime rate is on the increase and crime detection on the decrease? With bank robberies becoming more common, security would be stretched still further with large amounts of money being hoarded in unsuitable places. Probably the most serious consideration of all is that, since that intervention of the Minister for Finance last Thursday evening—certainly one not designed to help the situation—there have been enormous withdrawals of money, some of it by people who may be scared about not being able to lay their hands on adequate amounts of money during a strike period, if such occurred.

There is another more serious consideration for our economy, that is the huge export to foreign banks of moneys invested in our banks at a time when that money was never so badly needed. Surely the Minister for Finance, instead of adopting the attitude he did last week, could have adopted another. What he has done is criminal for a man in his position, particularly when one realises just how necessary is investment at home to be available to our industry. Furthermore, is there not also a danger that some of that money may never return for use by our banks? That is another very serious consideration.

I want to point out again the headover-heels attitude of the Labour Party. It is interesting that there are a number of Labour organisation meetings taking place in Dublin at present, the theme running through them being one of discontent with their members who hold ministerial office. In other words, Labour grass roots are saying: "The Ministers have left us and we want to go our own way." Basically the party are trying to wear two hats. I want to quote the Leader of the Labour Party, at column 109 of the Official Report of the 17th June, 1966, in the course of a debate on the Electricity (Special Provisions) Bill, 1966—there was not a national wage agreement in that year—when he said:

I believe that industrial relations should be cultivated rather than legislated for.

I wonder does he still believe that?

Mr. M. O'Leary

I really think the Deputy would be better advised to stay off that piece of legislation, the Electricity (Special Provisions) Act of 1966. I think, if he takes the advice of Deputy Colley beside him, he will understand that he should have avoided that subject.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Fitzgerald.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

It is very interesting that the Minister should intervene now when the boot is being pressed. Yet, earlier, when he was asked to explain the powers given to him on the order freezing wages, he could not.

Mr. M. O'Leary

The Deputy is pressing the boot into his own back. I am giving the Deputy good advice and he could not but appreciate it.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Earlier, when he was asked to explain the powers given to him under the order restricting or freezing wages, it could not be done. Now, because he remembers what the Minister for Health, Deputy Corish, said in different circumstances, neither he and his Government nor his colleague in Finance go along with that. Of course, it does not end there. One of the contenders for leadership of the Labour Party, Deputy Tully, Minister for Local Government, was on the same day assuring the then Minister that: "As far as we are concerned in the Labour Party every time this sort of measure is introduced here we shall oppose it tooth and nail." Interesting. I wonder did he oppose this? Was he one of those who shared in the disagreement at Cabinet level? The Minister was absent and he may not be aware of the divergence of views on this at Cabinet level.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I think the Deputy is unwise in broadening the spectrum from his own point of view.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

One thing the Minister cannot do is erase the records of this House. I repeat what Deputy Tully then said: "...every time this sort of measure is introduced here we shall oppose it tooth and nail." Now he is not raising a finger, a nail, showing a tooth or raising any voice against this legislation. The present Minister for Labour at column 240 of Volume 223 of the Official Report said:

The Bill brings us a step nearer to the totalitarian concept of the State... This morning the Government took a step towards the totalitarian concept where the State no longer sands neutral in the struggle between employer and employee...

I do not have to spell out how emtru barrassing these words must now be for the Minister who is introducing this mandatory pay pause for bank officials.

Our party's approach has been consistent and will always be consistent in regard to national wage agreements and in regard to our efforts to see moderation achieved. Had the Minister and his Government not been tempted by a desire to move so bullheadedly we would, of course, have co-operated in any legislation introduced ensuring reasonable control on national wage agreements. We did that on two previous occasions and we would do it now if the Minister would exercise a little patience. Some measures introduced by him already have been retrospective and there is nothing to prevent him making legislation retrospective now. The national wage agreement has not yet reached finality. It should have reached finality long ago and would have reached finality but for the Government's mishandling of the situation. Our leader spelled that out this morning.

In the last two years we have had two wage agreements, one in March in one year and one in April in another year. This year we are almost in July and we still have not got a national wage agreement. We were attacked for comparing the performance of the Minister for Finance with that of his counterpart in Britain and with his efforts there to achieve moderation. The fact is that the responsible Minister in Britain achieved some sort of reasonable approach by not doing anything to cause further inflation and by not increasing the cost of living. The workers seem to be the target all the time of the Government. Their standard of living is constantly eroded by more and more direct and indirect taxation. Only this morning we had another list of increases in the cost of living. Essentials, like bread and electricity, are going up again. These people were asked to accept a pay pause and all the time the Minister was raking in the money by way of taxation. That is one of the reasons why negotiations are persisting right into July.

We shall be in recess and we are rushing this Bill through before we go into recess. The guillotine motion was introduced this morning. Why should different treatment be given to this Bill? The Bill was introduced yesterday morning. It was circulated an hour or so later. The Second Stage was introduced at 11.30 this morning. All Stages are to be completed today and the Bill will go to the Seanad tomorrow. That is not the way to introduce legislation which affects the rights of people. Constitutional problems may arise. Adequate time should be given between the different Stages. Perhaps the Chair or the Minister would enlighten us as to what the position is with regard to Committee Stage. According to clause 2 (b) of the motion:

the Committee Stage of the Bill shall be proceeded with immediately upon the conclusion of the Second Stage and the proceedings on that Stage, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 9 p.m. by putting from the Chair the Question necessary to bring them to a conclusion; and the Question to be put from the Chair shall be "That (any amendments set down by the Minister for Labour and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill) the Bill (as amended) is hereby agreed to..."

Does that mean that only the Minister for Labour is entitled to bring in amendments on Committee Stage? It was said this morning by Government speakers that we are talking about the same kind of legislation for the third time. I want to make it crystal clear that we are not. We are talking about a completely different type of legislation. We are talking about giving powers to a Minister to implement at his whim. The others referred to the national wage agreement but they had the in-built protection of the Labour Court, which does not now exist. I cannot say often enough that there is no way this party will agree to giving such powers to any Minister of the Government nor would they look for that kind of power, to make an order to freeze wages.

This is specifically what is being done in this House today. Section 3, which is the most important section of the Bill, refers to the associated banks. It refers very specifically to the fact that after the commencement of the order the Minister may prohibit the payment. The same freeze is being placed on the other banks from yesterday. Let nobody be under any other illusion that this is not what it is all about. Let nobody on the other side of the House try to say that this is merely a holding operation. No Minister in any democratically elected Government should be given this power. No Minister should be allowed to take from the rights of individuals without in-built protection for them against the whims of a Minister.

This Bill bears no relation to increases in salaries. That is only a side result. The principle is important here, that of the Minister for Labour particularly stepping forward to take those powers from people and having the power to take rights away from a trade union with a negotiating licence. He will have power to make that negotiating licence inoperable.

We support the claim for moderation and the appeal for postponement of this strike. The stature of bank officials and of everybody concerned would be enhanced enormously if they only said: "We will put the strike back for two weeks. We will give people a chance to come again to talk." I do not blame them for being annoyed with the Government for their handling of the matter. If they are big enough to ignore that and look for postponement of the strike, then their opportunity of chastising the Government for their handling of this matter will come in its own good time. I appeal to the officials to show their patriotism and their responsibility.

The definitions in this Bill spell out the difference between it and the previous Acts. There are three definitions in the Act of last December—the bank, the national agreements and the Minister. There are two definitions in this Bill, the bank and the Minister. In section 3 an agreement is referred to. Towards the end of that section we find the definition of that agreement. I am satisfied there are people on the Government benches who do not think there is any specific difference between the two measures we did not oppose and the Bill before us today. If they read the Bill we are discussing and specifically look at section 3 (7) (a), they will get the explanation. They will be told how the Minister is getting power to freeze wages because that is what it is all about.

There is no in-built safety of the Labour Court on this occasion, which was a feature of the previous legislation. Penalties are not only imposed on the banks but also on persons, authorised officers, if their functions are hindered in any way. It is understandable that these officers will have facilities available to them. I would not like to see them operating the way the Minister for Finance has some of his inspectors operating throughout the country at present in a type of spy ring.

Those are the main points I want to make about the Bill. I want to state categorically that our opposition is against the rights of an individual and the rights of a trade union being withdrawn under this Bill and the Minister being given power to take over those rights. Our opposition is not to keeping the earnings, salaries and wages of people to the agreed principle of a national wage agreement. I have already said that we are satisfied that the urgency of this Bill was not precipitated by the threatened banks closure. It was precipitated by the desire of the Government to get out of the House at the earliest possible opportunity. The answer was a reasoned, sensible approach to all the bodies concerned.

I have always been a firm believer in keeping people at a negotiating table. Last Thursday night, when the Minister for Finance made a public attack, he made the negotiations still continuing less meaningful and he hindered any possible progress that could have been made on Friday. This pay freeze legislation followed on that. What guarantee have we that further measures of this nature will not be introduced? Personal assurances are not good enough any more. I have already quoted what some of the principal Labour Party holders of office in this Government had to say a few years ago. We did not oppose the two last measures.

We would not have opposed the measure if the Minister had waited, as he should have done. We would not oppose a measure linked with the hoped for national wage agreement. All of us hope we will have a new national wage agreement. If the Minister then introduced legislation linked with increases in that agreement, we would continue to support it but we will not support legislation giving the Minister of the day the power to freeze wages for anyone. This is what we are opposing.

In his reply I would ask the Minister to give us his interpretation of the ministerial order. I want him to tell us how he will wear the new mantle placed on the shoulders of a Labour Minister in an Irish Government.

Mr. Colley

At the outset I should like to say that so far as this side of the House is concerned we hope that the talks which I understand are taking place this morning between the banks and the officials will be successful. Deputy Fitzgerald has spelled out some of the potentially disastrous consequences of a bank closure and nobody in his right mind could wish those consequences on our economy. However, it is unfortunate that the whole approach of the Government in this matter has been to have the effect of hindering the possibility of an agreement being arrived at. When I say that I am talking about an agreement that would and should be acceptable to the Government, not merely an agreement between the two parties concerned.

The whole handling of this matter highlighted by what I described as the bull-in-the-china-shop approach of the Minister for Finance last week——

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Scrub bull.

Mr. Colley

I will not comment further on that. The whole approach seemed designed deliberately to prevent success in the talks. Insult was added to injury when it was learned that the statement by the Minister for Finance, supposedly on behalf of the Government, was made at a party political function of the Fine Gael Party or so it was alleged.

Mr. Wilson

Was it at Slattery's?

Mr. Colley

I do not know. It was alleged to have been made there, at any rate. If the Government thought it necessary to make a public announcement in this regard, one would have thought a more appropriate method could have been found. That a public declaration by the Government in this regard should have been made seems to have been ill-advised and inappropriate.

This morning we heard the Minister for Finance say that the criticism directed at his intervention was criticism of his replying to his critics. Perhaps he believes that. If he does, it is a very unfortunate situation that the affairs of our country should be in the hands of a man who can be so blind. If he does not believe what he said, if he knows the truth, he might have acknowledged it. The truth is that nobody was criticising him for replying to his critics but what he said was directed at the Irish Bank Officials' Association. It was so accepted by them and they reacted predictably to that intervention.

The whole history of this measure now before the House is very strange. That kind of intervention by the Minister for Finance had led to a fairly commonly accepted view that the Government want to see a bank closure. Personally, I do not accept that. I do not believe any Government could be so crazy as to wish that. However, the intervention was so obviously ill-advised that many people believe the Government want a bank closure. One must take account of the whole mishandling of the situation regarding the national agreement dating back to the last budget which was introduced in the knowledge that negotiations for a national agreement were about to take place and which was apparently designed to ensure that they would not succeed.

I am not going to develop that theme now because it is well known but one must take into account the whole approach of the Government in this matter, culminating in the extraordinary situation this morning when the Minister for Labour made a speech introducing the Second Stage that, to the best of my knowledge, was unprecedented in this House. One can go through the text of the speech but one will not find any reference in it to any section of the Bill. I do not recall any occasion on which a Minister of any Government on the Second Stage of a Bill he was promoting in the House made no reference whatever to any section in the Bill. This is just more of the very strange atmosphere that surrounds this measure. It adds to the mystery of what is going on. Of course, the fact that the Government Information Services apparently informed the news media that the Bill was going to be taken yesterday when it was taken today is only a minor mystery. The fact that the guillotine has been applied to get the Bill through all Stages today is more of the same.

We have had an effort by the Minister for Finance this morning and also by the Minister for Labour to suggest that this Bill is the same as the two previous Bills which this party supported. To me this is the greatest mystery surrounding this whole Bill, because this statement is demonstrably untrue. One has only to look at the two Bills to see the difference. It is a bit unfortunate that the Deputies who will be asked to go into the lobby to support this Bill, on the basis that it is the same as the previous Bill, are not here to listen to the arguments to demonstrate why there is an enormous difference. That is unfortunate but, perhaps, it is not surprising in all the circumstances.

I want to make it absolutely clear that this Bill is fundamentally different from the two previous Bills to which we gave our support. I indicated earlier on the closure motion the attitude of this party to national pay agreements, an attitude which has been absolutely consistent from the time we fought a major battle in this House against the Minister for Labour, and the Tánaiste, and all the other members of this Government, and their supporters, in order to create a climate in which we could have a national agreement. We have consistently supported national agreements since.

Although we in this party believe the best interests of the country are served by free collective bargaining, nevertheless we have been prepared to sacrifice that belief on occasions where the national interest clearly required it. Occasions where the national interest clearly required it arose in the past in connection with banks and their staffs. This Government, contrary to their protestations, found it necessary to bring in legislation to apply the national pay agreement statutorily to the staffs of the banks. This party, consistent with our policy from the beginning, supported that.

To allege, as the Minister for Finance did, and as the Minister for Labour has done, that this Bill is doing the same thing is so incredibly untrue that one must hope one will get some kind of explanation from the Minister for Labour. I must say I am not very hopeful, in view of the fact that we sought an explanation from him and he was unable to give us any.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): There is not even an explanation with the Bill.

Mr. Colley

There is no word of explanation with the Bill, or in the Minister's speech, or in response to a question to him as to what on earth this whole thing is about.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): Disgraceful.

Mr. M. O'Leary

If the Deputy can spare the time I will give an adequate explanation when I am replying.

Mr. Colley

Why could the Minister not give it when he was introducing the Bill like any other Minister has always done? What is the secret? What is he hiding?

Mr. M. O'Leary

The Deputy should get on with his speech and cut out the nonsense.

Mr. Colley

Why do we have to go through this Bill to demonstrate that the Minister for Labour was telling an untruth to this House when he suggested it was the same kind of Bill as before?

Acting Chairman (Mr. M.E. Dockrell)

The Deputy must put his questions through the Chair and not address the Minister directly.

Mr. Colley

I may have been looking at the Minister but my questions were addressed through you, Sir.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy will continue to address me in a less vehement manner, I trust, and we will get through the debate more quickly.

Mr. Colley

I would wish to be less vehement but I was provoked by the inane intervention by a Minister who introduces a Bill here without attempting to explain it. Is this House to be a total rubber stamp so far as the Government are concerned? Ram it through and do not bother to explain it. That is the kind of treatment this House and the country can expect. I want to tell the Minister for Labour that, if that is the approach, the Government will have an even more difficult task than they have had up to now.

To us this Bill is totally and fundamentally different from previous Bills introduced by the Minister which we supported. May I, in demonstration of that fact, simply refer briefly to the explanatory memorandum issued with the 1975 Bill. There is no explanatory memorandum with this mystery Bill. The explanatory memorandum issued with the 1975 Bill, which the Government say is the same as this Bill, said in relation to section 3:

The Labour Court will examine the agreement to determine whether its terms are in accordance with the provisions or purposes of the National Agreements; the Court will then furnish a report in the matter to the Minister.

May I ask in which section of the Bill now before us is there a reference to the Labour Court? In which section is there a reference to national agreements? There is no such reference in this Bill.

In relation to section 4 the explanatory memorandum said:

...the Labour Court determines in a report furnished to the Minister that the increases or improvements are at variance with the provisions or purposes of the National Agreements or this Act, the Minister may by order determine the remuneration etc. in respect of the period to which the order relates. The Minister may also prohibit the payment of increases in remuneration etc. in excess of those determined.

Again I ask where in the Bill before the House today is there any such provision? Where is the reference to the national agreement? Where is the reference to the Labour Court? That is the provision we supported in the past. The Minister should not pretend this Bill is the same and requires our support on the same basis.

If we look more closely at this Bill we find it provides that the Minister for Labour may make an order. If the Minister makes that order it will "prohibit the payment by the associated banks to their employees, after the commencement of the order, of remuneration at rates exceeding the rates of such remuneration provided for by the Agreement." It also prohibits the making, implementing or continued implementing by the associated banks of any amendments or variations of the other terms or conditions of employment in the agreement. The agreement is defined.

The agreement is not the national agreements of the past and not the national agreement which it is hoped will be arrived at. The agreement is defined in subsection (7). It is the agreement entitled an agreement between the banks' staffs relations committee, on behalf of its members and the Irish Bank Officials' Association. on behalf of its members employed by the banks in the Republic of Ireland, on the revision of salaries of bank officials which was signed by the chairman of the banks' Joint Industrial Council on 4th July, 1975, signed on behalf of the Irish Bank Officials' Association on 20th June, 1975, and signed on behalf of the banks' staff relations committee on 7th July, 1975. It goes on to say "...whose duration was expressed to be a period of twelve months from the 1st day of June, 1975, as modified by the agreement ..." It goes on to give the details of that. Again it is a bank agreement. Nowhere in this Bill is there are any reference to the national agreement. On the other hand, in the 1975 Act which we supported, and which the Minister tells us is the same, we find——

Mr. M. O'Leary

Is the Deputy referring to the 1975 Act? Does he relate his remarks to the measure he introduced?

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

That type of intervention by the Minister is disgraceful. Obviously he did not hear the commencement of Deputy Colley's statement. He was reading from his notes. He overheard part of what was said and then he interrupted. That is typical of what is happening here this morning.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I just wondered whether he related his remarks to his own measure, the legislation he drew up and to which I will refer in my reply.

Mr. Colley

Is the Minister referring to the 1970 Act?

Mr. M. O'Leary

I am referring to the Deputy's remuneration of banks measure, drawn up by him when in office.

Mr. Colley

The Minister is obviously trying to confuse the issue. I will make the point for him again. Perhap, as Deputy Fitzgerald suggested, he did not hear the beginning of it. The Minister and his colleague, the Minister for Finance, have argued that Fianna Fáil, in opposing the Bill now before the House are inconsistent because we supported two previous measures.

Mr. O'Leary

Absolutely.

Mr. Colley

I have been at some pains to draw attention to the difference between the measures we supported and the measure now before the House. The Minister will recall that before we entered into this discussion we asked him to explain this very point, and he refused to do so, and, contrary to all precedent, failed to do so in his introductory speech.

Mr. M. O'Leary

That is a matter of opinion.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): There is nothing in this.

Mr. Colley

If the Minister tries to tell us afterwards that we misunderstand the Bill, then the responsibility is his and he will have to spell it out. We are faced with the situation in which the Minister failed and refused to explain the Bill when introducing it. We take it as we find it. We compare it with Bills which we supported, and on that basis we refute categorically the allegation that this party are now opposing something they previously supported. For the benefit of the Minister, I would remind him that in the Bill before the House there is no reference to a national agreement; there is no reference to the Labour Court. In the Bill we supported the national agreement is defined and there is provision for referring that to the Labour Court.

What order can be made under this Bill by the Minister? One, an order which freezes the pay of bank officials to the level now existing. There is no power in this Bill for the Minister to make an order, for instance, saying bank officials' pay, assuming there is a national pay agreement, may be adjusted in line with the national pay agreement.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Obviously the Deputy does not understand the first thing about this Bill. It is a simple measure.

Mr. Colley

That is possible, but we asked the Minister to explain it. Why did he not?

Mr. M. O'Leary

I am surprised that a man who drew up legislation in this area originally cannot read a simple measure of this sort.

Mr. Colley

It is a simple question. Would the Minister care to tell us why he did not explain the Bill when he was asked to, which is his obligation in this House?

Mr. M. O'Leary

That is a total confession of incompetence and ignorance.

Acting Chairman

The Chair must point out that the debate cannot be carried on by cross-examination, and that refers to the Minister, too.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I accept that from the Chair.

Acting Chairman

We cannot have cross-examination.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I was so surprised by the confession of ignorance.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

This type of arrogance is very annoying.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Mr. Colley

I am delighted that even for a short time we have a few Deputies behind the Minister who may have been misled into believing that this Bill is the same as the two previous Bills the Minister introduced. They may have noticed that the Minister failed and refused to explain the Bill when he brought it in. His Second Reading speech contains no reference to any section of the Bill, and when he was asked if he would mind explaining, he did not do so. Now we have had a rather supercilious interjection from the Minister to imply that we are misreading the Bill —this from a man who did not deign to try to explain it.

The fact is that this Bill contains no reference to the Labour Court, no reference to the national agreement. We supported two Bills previously which endeavoured to apply the national agreement to the bank officials' pay and which used the Labour Court as the instrument and agency to determine whether the pay was in accordance with that agreement. That is what we supported and are still prepared to support. We are not prepared to support a Bill which gives the Minister power to make an order —the only kind of order he can make —which freezes the pay of bank officials to their present level. This is a statutory wage freeze.

The Minister may argue that it is merely a question of trying to hold this over their heads and that he is in the difficult position that, since there is no national pay agreement at the moment, he cannot specify that in the Bill. Of course, that is not impossible from a drafting point of view. He can easily get around it, and Deputy Fitzgerald adverted to the fact that it would be possible to apply the matter retrospectively, notice having been given. This is precisely what he had in mind, the difficulty in regard to the national pay agreement.

Let us suppose there is a national pay agreement. Does this enable the Minister to do as the previous Bills did, to insist that the pay of bank officials conforms to the national pay agreement? It does not. There is nothing in this Bill to enable the Minister to do that. Is the Minister implying, by his tut-tutting that there is something in it? Would the Minister tell us even which section it is in?

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

The Minister has read it, I presume.

Mr. Colley

It is beginning to be doubtful whether the Minister knows what is in the Bill.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I have certainly no doubt that the Deputy does not know anything about what is in the Bill.

Mr. Colley

This comes very ill from a Minister who refused to answer a question on the Bill when he was introducing it. Would the Minister care to indicate even which section of this Bill he thinks gives power to him to apply the national agreement to bank officials?

Mr. M. O'Leary

It is a simple measure.

Mr. Colley

Which section?

Mr. M. O'Leary

If the Deputy wants to make a political speech on a serious matter his continued reiteration of inaccuracies about this Bill does nothing to commend the responsibility which he says belongs to his party.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies, Deputies.

Mr. Colley

Will the Minister stop bluffing?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies, the debate must not be carried on by cross-examination of the Minister.

Mr. Colley

The Minister must not intervene with these inane statements if he does not want to be crossexamined.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must await the Minister's explanation.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

On a point of order, I want to submit that the Minister has been continually interrupting Deputy Colley, is making untrue statements and is inferring that there is something contained in this Bill that is not there. If the Minister wants to explain it to us we invite him to do it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Under the guise of a point of order the Deputy is making a speech.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

The Minister was asked to explain it and he will not do it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has asked Deputies not to conduct this debate by cross-examination or interruption.

Mr. Colley

If there is a national pay agreement, there is nothing in this Bill which would enable the Minister to make an order applying the national pay agreement to the bank officials' incomes. The Minister tried to imply by an interruption that there was such. It will have been noticed that the Minister was asked to say which section was involved. All the Minister had to give was one word, but he gave a lot of words and did not mention which section. There is no reference in this Bill to the national pay agreement or to the Labour Court. The section that applies says that the Minister may make an order prohibiting the payment by the associated banks to their employees, of remuneration at rates exceeding remuneration provided for in the agreement. The agreement is specified. The latest date of any such agreement is the 9th June, 1976, but in fact it substantially refers to the agreement entered into on 7th July, 1975. These are all bank agreements. There is no reference to the national pay agreement. This Bill enables the Minister to make an order prohibiting the banks from paying to their employees any more than they were entitled to yesterday, 23rd June, 1976. That is provided for in subsection (2) of section 3.

There are other possibilities. Suppose we do not have a national pay agreement, which unfortunately is a distinct possibility, what then? Will the Minister make an order, as provided for in this Bill, prohibiting the banks from paying to their employees more than they are entitled to at the moment? That is the only kind of order the Minister can make under this Bill. If the Minister does that, then this is a statutory freeze on the pay of bank officials. If the Government want to make the case that there should be a statutory freeze on pay, then they should make it; but there is no way they can justify doing that to bank officials only in the absence of a national pay agreement. If the Government think there should be a pay freeze they should say so and bring in a Bill to provide for it and we will discuss it. If, on the other hand, there is no national pay agreement, and the Minister makes no order, what is this Bill about? What are we wasting our time for? The fact is that this Government have, for reasons which may be clear to themselves but which are not clear to anybody else, made one blunder after another in relation to the national pay agreement and particularly in relation to this matter of the pay of bank officials. As a result we now have this Bill before us.

Mr. Coughlan

We made two blunders one in Dublin and one in Donegal.

Mr. Colley

Is Deputy Coughlan telling us, by any chance, that he is happy with the results of the only by-election which his party has contested recently?

Mr. Coughlan

Of course we are.

Mr. Colley

Look to your seat in Limerick.

Mr. Coughlan

Do not worry, it is there.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not think the constituencies in Limerick or even in Donegal enter into this debate.

Mr. Coughlan

Deputy Colley is trying to tell us the way people are turning against Fianna Fáil. I am trying to tell him what has happened by reference to Donegal and Dublin.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must not do so by interruption.

Mr. Colley

Actually what I was trying to tell the Deputy and his colleagues was what was in this Bill because I suspect that they do not know. They are being asked to go in and vote on a Bill which provides that if an order is made, the only order that can be made under it is an order to freeze bank officials' pay. It does not enable the Minister to do anything else.

It is interesting to note the views of Deputies on the other side in regard to this whole matter of wage control. I have a few quotations from Deputies opposite when they were discussing this question in this House from this side of the House in 1970 in regard to the Prices and Incomes Bill of that year. The Leader of the Labour Party on 28th October, 1970, at column 56 of the Official Report said:

As far as this party is concerned and as far as the trade union movement is concerned neither they nor we will ever agree to any measure which takes away the right to free collective bargaining.

I wonder does Deputy Coughlan support that view or this Bill? He cannot support both, because this Bill enables the Minister for Labour to bring in an order which freezes the pay of bank officials at what it is today irrespective of whether there is a national pay agreement and irrespective of whether there is an agreement between the banks and their staffs.

Mr. Coughlan

Are you putting a question to me?

Mr. Colley

If the Deputy would care to answer I would be delighted.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Any question must be put through the Chair.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Coughlan may make a speech later if he so desires.

Mr. Colley

If Deputy Coughlan were to make a speech on this Bill that would be very welcome, we would all be delighted, but I venture to suggest that it is an unlikely development.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It does not arise.

Mr. Colley

In the same debate on 10th November, 1970, the present Minister for Foreign Affairs, at column 1051 of the Official Report said:

I recognise that Governments may make such a mess of things as to make a temporary wage freeze necessary. I do not believe that such a wage freeze, if imposed, can do anything other than hold off the danger for a period, while in the meantime building up a head of steam behind it. The Government which find themselves forced to introduce such a measure are a Government which are defeated. They are conceding defeat without even trying to solve the problem

Deputy Barry Desmond who also spoke on that debate on 11th November, 1970, at column 1140 of the Official Report said:

The Government must place the facts of life before the negotiating parties but it is not their job to interfere directly, as they have done on this occasion, between the trade unions and employers.

Later on in the same column Deputy Desmond said:

That is the first principle—no interference in free negotiations between the trade unions and the employers.

The present Minister for Industry and Commerce on 17th November, 1970, at column 1535 of the Official Report said:

As a matter of principle, I have objections to any interference with free collective bargaining.

Apparently, his principles have changed or gone out the window because it seems he supports this Bill. Later, at column 1547 on the same day, he said:

...what is said implicity is that the right of employers to go earning increased profits must be protected but the right of specially situated sections of the working class to use their extraordinary bargaining power, which becomes greater every year, to increase their circumstances must be forbidden by law. That is the sort of bargaining that Fintan Lalor repudiated in very graphic words a long time ago.

I trust the Minister for Labour will bear that in mind if he is tempted to repeat the kind of thing that was said by the Minister for Local Government standing in here for him the other day, when it was suggested that the bank officials are in a special position and they can exercise a special leverage to take them outside the national law. Apparently, the Minister for Industry and Commerce thinks that is a right they should have; it is "the right of a specially situated section of the working class to use their extraordinary bargaining powers" and he thinks that any interference with that by law is something that was repudiated by Fintan Lalor in graphic words a long time ago and, clearly, he was repudiating it also. However, times change——

Mr. M. O'Leary

Actually section 4 of your Bill is very tough indeed on bank employees. I have it here before me.

Mr. Colley

I think the Minister is mistaken. We on this side of the House have demonstrated repeatedly that we are prepared to do our duty as a Government and as an Opposition. It was the Minister and his colleagues who came in here ranting about the inviolability of the right to free collective bargaining. What are they doing in this Bill? What have they done in the previous Bill?

Mr. M. O'Leary

I thought you were setting yourself up to be the defender of the bank officials but section 4 of your legislation would have the effect——

Mr. Colley

Why does the Minister not listen to what is being said instead of going on with this inane nonsense? He comes in here without even reading his brief. Bad and all as the brief was, the Minister has not even read it.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. M. O'Leary

You are a tissue of inconsistencies. No wonder you are where you are.

Mr. Colley

It is a downright disgrace that we have this kind of contemptuous performance by a Minister for Labour who does not know——

(Interruptions.)

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I think it is time that we had a quorum to listen to this disgraceful performance on the part of the Minister bluffing his way for the past hour-and-a-half here because he cannot take the truth.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Sheer demagoguery.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Carter)

Deputy Colley to resume, but before the Deputy proceeds I want to warn the Minister and the Deputy that this debate may not be carried on by a squabbling match across the House. If there is any Deputy here under the impression that it will be carried on in that manner I shall take steps to disabuse him of that idea.

Mr. Coughlan

We were not in session——

Acting Chairman

I have been listening to the Deputy for some time and I do not want to hear any more from him. He will have his chance to speak if he wishes but for the remainder of the debate he should reserve his remarks until his turn comes.

Mr. Coughlan

We were not in session at the time and I was speaking to Deputy Briscoe. You were not in the Chair. There was nobody in the Chair.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy will refrain from any further remarks.

Mr. Coughlan

There was nobody in the Chair when I was speaking.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Colley

I, for one, have no wish to conduct this debate on the basis of a squabbling match across the floor—I think these were the words you used. I have endeavoured to deal with the Bill as I find it but I have been subjected to rather sneering remarks from the Minister who, when asked either at the beginning or as a result of his interjections, to explain what he says is in the Bill, has consistently refused to do so. However, the terms of the Bill make it quite clear that it is proposed to give the Minister power to do one thing only: restrict the pay of bank officials to what it is at the moment. It does not enable the Minister to make an order confining the pay of bank officials to the terms of the national agreement if an agreement is arrived at. There is nothing in the Bill to enable him to do that. It would appear that if there is a national agreement and if, as has happened in the past, the IBOA refuse to be bound by the terms of that agreement and the Minister is obliged statutorily to enforce it, he will have to bring in another Bill. This Bill will not enable him to do it. Therefore, the mystery as to why this Bill is before the House becomes greater all the time. I can make no sense of the thinking behind the Bill. I have tried to demonstrate that if there is a national agreement this Bill will not enable the Minister to do what presumably he will have to do. If there still is not, the only order he can make is one that applies to bank officials, a freezing of their pay. If he wants to do that across the board, that is what the Bill should provide and we would then know what the Government have in mind.

I have quoted some of the statements made by present Ministers when dealing with this very question of statutory control of incomes and it is clear that their reaction then was totally different from today. From an intervention by the Minister, it would appear he still misunderstands the position on this side. We do not pose as champions of the bank officials or of the banks. In so far as we are posing as champions of anything or anybody it is of national pay agreements. That is what Fianna Fáil have consistently supported in relation to banks and other workers. That is what we would support now, but that is what the Bill fails to provide for. It is possible the Minister may produce a rabbit out of the hat and show that this Bill, though it makes no mention of an agreement or of the Labour Court, provides for applying a new national agreement to bank officials. Miracles happen from time to time but I would say it is unlikely that it will happen now, and we will, therefore, be left as we have been with no explanation of the Bill, only sneering interventions by the Minister who, when pinned down, will refuse to give any sort of hard information. That is no way to treat the House, the country or the grave situation with which we are faced, but it is one that will hardly surprise the people who are only too familiar with the lightweight approach we get from some members of the Government and the Minister for Labour in particular.

Mr. Brennan

I will intervene but briefly in this rather unique performance of bringing in legislation in this way, which to me is almost nostalgic in its reference to the banks. There are few people, if any, in the House who had so much confrontation and negotiation with bank officials as I had in my period as Minister for Labour. I found my temper frayed at times, and perhaps I found myself making statements that at times were over-emotional because one could not fail to be concerned seriously with the importance of holding down incomes and prices in those early days when inflation was beginning to rear its ugly head.

They were the days when it was essential to cool the economy and hold in check situations that threatened and that have happened since. They were anxious days when there was a good deal of right and justice on both sides. We were concerned with the economy. We were concerned with the banks stepping out of line. They pleaded they were not part of the national pay agreement and that because the employers were willing to pay and the employees could show they were entitled to a certain remuneration, it was not the business of anybody else.

We had to insist that the overall effect on the national economy was much too important, and for that reason on two occasions if not more I had to refer bank pay agreements to the Labour Court. The last occasion was shortly before the 1973 general election and by the time the court had reported the Government had changed. In the meantime, the banks were already paying the officials the rates in the agreement submitted to the Labour Court. I thought it was a bit high-handed: they took advantage of the situation to get under the ropes, so to speak, and the intervention of the election provided that opportunity. It was a time when legislation should have been brought in immediately. However, one is prepared to accept that new brooms tend to sweep clean, and eventually we had legislation brought in by the Minister for Labour.

The reason the Minister for Labour gave for it was naturally different from the one he gave today, and today's legislation is fundamentally different from that to which we agreed on that occasion. I have here a copy of the speech of the Minister on the 1973 Bill and he said, and it is typical of his entire speech:

The Government are determined to do everything possible to preserve a climate in which a national agreement may flourish. Our economic policy must be directed towards the creation of more jobs and the creation of a higher standard of living. Our prices strategy will ensure a careful surveillance of factors which will include the cost of living.

They were very good sentiments from a Government starting out in office and the Opposition were justified in giving the Government their full support on that measure. The Government apparently were setting out to do what the country would be very grateful for today—the taking of stern measures to hold down incomes and prices and to prevent the morass we are now experiencing.

There are certain imponderables which are axiomatic in the economy at all times but at present the economy is in an awful mess and the Government have contributed seriously to that situation. It is in this climate that we are asked to discuss legislation to freeze the incomes of a certain section of the community. I am trying to be brief and I will not repeat what has been said, but Deputy Colley pointed out the fundamental difference between this Bill and the previous Act. Section 3 states:

(1) The Minister may from time to time by order—

(a) prohibit the payment by the associated banks to their employees, after the commencement of the order, of remuneration at rates exceeding the rates of such remuneration provided for by the Agreement,

The agreement is between the banks' staff relations committee and the IBOA on behalf of their members and signed on 1st July, 1975, modified by the parties and signed on 9th June, 1976. That is the agreement to which the banks are to be held.

That is unusual. When the Minister is replying I trust he will tell us whether, in the event of there being a national wage agreement which could be shown by the Labour Court to be considerably more advantageous than any agreement entered into between the banks and their officials, the bank officials would be allowed go as far as that agreement provides. There is no provision in the Bill for reference to the Labour Court but the Minister is empowered by virtue of section 24 of the Industrial Relations Act to refer any agreement to the Labour Court at any time. Despite the fact that there is no provision in this Bill for such reference, I am sure he would be able to have the agreement examined for the purpose of ascertaining whether it was less advantageous to the bank officials than what the national wage agreement generally may be. On the other hand, if instead of a national wage agreement there is a free for all, will this piece of legislation still hold in relation to the banks? Already unprecendented demands are being made by some sections of the industrial community. These vital questions remain unanswered.

In these circumstances we are asking that this precipitate action be deferred for at least another week so that we might know what the situation is likely to be. In the event of a free-for-all situation, must the terms of the agreement signed last June and modified in June this year remain in relation to the bank officials or will the Minister make an order prohibiting them from receiving anything in excess of what is provided for in that agreement? Without prejudicing the ongoing negotiations in both cases, the Minister cannot answer these questions. Consequently, regardless of how essential it may be even at this late hour to come to grips with the inflationary situation in respect of prices and wages, this legislation is precipitate and ill-advised.

During the debate this morning on the guillotine motion the Leader of this party told the Government that they would be well advised to wait another week or so and instead of adjourning next week to withdraw the legislation and postpone the recess for a further week at least. The situation is very serious. It concerns the country as a whole. Many people are beginning to despair that any serious effort will be made to stop the uncontrolled spiral of inflation which is threatening to bring into total chaos every feature of our national economy.

Somebody referred today to the spate of new increases announced this morning. On this occasion bread is included and we have the frightening situation of a 5 per cent increase in ESB charges, an increase which is aimed at bringing in another £6,500,000. This amount is to be taken directly from the pockets of the consumers. Yet nobody cries "stop". The Government and the State-sponsored bodies are the biggest offenders in so far as the cost of living is concerned. If we were to examine carefully the performance which has led up to the efforts to bring about a national pay agreement, we would find that the Government can take no credit in this respect. We had a budget which increased prices by 5 or 6 per cent. This was followed by a spate of increases on the part of State-sponsored bodies. The Government then called on workers to agree to a pay pause. We were told that in the absence of a pay pause we would have a crucifixion of the economy, that there would be additional taxes and another budget. However, when it appeared that it would not be possible to effect a pay pause, the Minister was prepared to accept a situation of modest increases and, later, to accept anything. Is it any wonder then, that the bank officials are totally frustrated in the negotiations in relation to their position and especially at a time when a national wage agreement has not been reached? It is on those grounds that the Opposition are opposing the Bill.

Many times in the past I had occasion to sit down with both sides in a bank dispute. They had a highly efficient, professional negotiator employed whose only interest was to further the interests of the people who employed him, and he could do it well. Against that we had to struggle to get these people to realise that if the country was to get into the throes of a serious, spiralling inflationary situation, it would lead ultimately to heavy unemployment, a decline in investment in production and the erosion of competitive costings of exports on foreign markets. All of that has happened. Now we find ourselves in the position that prices on foreign markets are beginning to stabilise. Yet with home costs soaring we are not in a position, nor will we be, to have competitive costs to enable us get exports moving or to compete for a long time to come. The costs are admitted, sometimes mealy-mouthed in the admission, but at least it is conceded by the Minister in his introductory remarks:

It cannot be said too often that the reduction of the present unacceptably high unemployment figures requires that our industrial costs be kept as low as possible so that our economy can participate on the most advantageous terms possible in the export markets with our trading partners in the EEC. Although wage increases are not the sole cause of cost increases they do form a significant proportion.

That is a sort of belated admission. They form a very serious proportion, particularly in high labour-content industries. The action with which we are now playing in a rather halfhearted way is the type of action that should have been taken three years ago. This has been said a thousand times. There is the question here of locking the stable door when the horse has gone. Even at this juncture it would be important. But nobody, least of all, members of the Labour Party who profess high principles in relation to wage fixing legislation, could condone a measure that selectively puts the Minister in a position of freezing the remuneration of one set of workers and allowing others to go free. It is true that when we proposed penalties in legislation before it was the funds of the unions that would pay. I did not see anything wrong with that. If legislation is to be a deterrent it has got to contain such provisions. The important thing is to get people to realise that by taking selfish action, with no relation to what other sections are doing, ultimately they are creating a situation affecting the whole economy and in which everybody, but particularly the weaker sections, will be the sufferers. That was the message we were trying to get across in our early negotiations with the banks as far back as 1970. I think they appreciated that that was so because they resorted to making the case, and with some validity, that originally bank officials were poorly paid. There was a time when a bank clerk had to be supported by his parents for a number of years. The old theme was that one spent the first 20 years getting into debt and the second trying to get out of it.

We have seen the complete turn of the wheel in that situation, the complete cycle, and we are now in a situation in which there is not alone security but high social standing and good remuneration available to people fortunate enough to be employed by the banks. But that does not deprive them of rights. What we do with them must relate to what is done in other sections of society and other sectors of the economy. If we are to say to that set of workers now: "We will see that you do not exceed what is in a particular agreement; we will freeze you at that point; that will not apply to others" I do not think anybody would really support that.

Nobody wants a bank strike. Nobody in this country knows better than I what it means. The period of 1970 from April to November was a trying one for any Minister for Labour. The stick I had to take from the Opposition at the time is not by any means the reason I am speaking as I do in relation to this proposed legislation. I appreciated that the Labour Party had a case to make, a stance to adopt and their opposition at the time—without going over records, as some previous speakers have done—did not make it very easy for me. It was a difficult time for the economy. Many people could not appreciate how the country could have survived.

I think bank officials now would be mad to go on strike because the same opportunities for employment do not exist. They do not receive any remuneration from their union and job opportunities across the channel, if they wished to emigrate temporarily, are not as good either. They must have regard to the fact that the economy is undergoing the most serious crisis experienced for a long time. Somebody at some time has got to say that this is our country, we have to co-operate and do something to pull ourselves up by the shoestrings. If the Government do not do it somebody else will have to take responsibility and make a move towards real stabilisation of the economy and a sense of realism in a situation that threatens to go on incessantly.

Increased prices have been announced today. That will contribute further to the consumer price index which would constitute the criterion for a further increase in wages at a later date. When wages go up prices must follow; when prices go up wages must follow. No serious effort to remedy this situation is being made. We are merely fiddling in endeavours to arrest this spiralling situation, an end to which nobody can foresee. The Government seem to be hoping, Micawber-like, that something will happen in the international field, that the world recession will eventually leave our shores and in that situation we may hopefully pass from the present serious position in which we find ourselves.

Every Government have their own sovereignty and every Government have an obligation to look after their own affairs and play their part. No matter how much we blame factors alleged to be outside our control we really have it in our own grasp to control the inflationary situation. We have not done so and we are still doing nothing about it. Something must be done by somebody. One becomes nauseated at the attitude of the media to the Opposition. It is amusing to note the attitude to the jigsaw puzzle of the last three years. The media support the Government and then, when the Government fail, they turn their attention to the Opposition and we find ourselves blamed for the present situation because, it is alleged, we are not a good enough Opposition.

We could stand here for weeks on end pointing out to the Government the errors of their ways and what should be done and must be done, things any student of elementary economics knows should be done, but we would not change the attitude on the other side of the House because, though the numbers may be small, the decision is taken in the division lobby. What could the Opposition do when the Minister for Finance came in here one morning and by a simple order took about £16 million out of the pockets of those using motor cars? Where is the good in blaming the Opposition for that? What could we do except point out the injustice of it. We will continue to move divisions.

What are we going to have? Are we going to have nationalisation? Are we going to have socialism? Are we going to have private enterprise? Are we going to have collective bargaining or wage fixing by legislation? Nobody knows the answers to these questions. The Government have produced no programme. They have produced no blueprint for the future. The pundits weigh up the figures—1 per cent down here, 8 per cent up there and 7 per cent up or down somewhere else. Things are holding well and people will be able to stick it out for another while. But the great mass of the people are suffering all the time. The value of money grows less. There are fewer in employment. There is widespread frustration. Students passing out from post-primary and third level education have no guidance and they do not know where the future may lead them. Generally we are in the situation in which we were in 1957, except that the situation now is much worse.

This legislation tells one important set of workers they must not exceed the terms of the agreement signed in June last and modified in the first week of June this year. That is not an exercise in coping with the seriousness of the situation. There are two important points in this legislation. If a wage agreement emerges and it is more advantageous than the provisions of the agreement referred to in this Bill, will the Minister permit bank officials to move up in line with that national wage agreement? If there is no national wage agreement and there is a free for all, will the Minister still make an order prohibiting bank officials from any improvement in the terms of their agreement? It may not be possible to answer these questions and therein lies the proof that this legislation is precipitate, brought in at a time when it is likely to prejudice a delicate situation. It should have been delayed for at least another week. That would not be too long in the circumstances. This Bill is like the Sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of the negotiators, a possible guideline to the people balloting in the national wage agreement and a possible threat. Which it is intended to be I am not sure, but it is certainly inopportune.

There is a good deal of talk about the lack of programmes and policies. I have had a good deal of experience in the production of suitable policies and programmes. One thing is certain: this country will make no real progress unless the partners in society, as they are called now, the workers and the employers and the Government, work in harmony, each determined to play their part in lifting the country out of the rut. Until we reach that situation we shall make no progress; we will not have that rapid expansion that will create job opportunities for our growing population as well as for the chronic unemployed that we have had with us for so long. A policy which does not provide for that cooperation will achieve no worth-while success.

It is only when we give to the worker a just return for what he does and to the investor a just return for the money he invests and when the Government make it possible for both of them to co-operate with each other that we can look forward to real progress in any sector of the community. It is only then we can have the wealth and the means of generating it so that we can redistribute it to our senior citizens and those unfortunate people in our society, who, due to no fault of their own, are unable to earn their own livelihood.

That is the simple answer but the programme that will create it is not so simple. It can be applied if we are given the proper conditions and circumstances. A strong single party Government with the necessary idealism and determination is most essential to that set of circumstances. We have been told that this legislation is in the national interest, which implies that those of us opposing it are doing something against the national interest. If by opposing it we really rock the Government into a sense of responsibility and force them perhaps to try their luck with the people for a new mandate, then our action in opposing it is really in the national interest.

Mr. Briscoe

I hope that next Sunday we will hear not the Minister for Labour being interviewed on the programme "This Week" but the Minister for Finance, because some months ago he was interviewed and asked to make statements in relation to a statutory pay pause. He said: "It is not the intention of the Government and nowhere have the Government said they will introduce a statutory pay pause." When the interviewer quoted to him what he had said: "Under no circumstance will any increases be permitted this year" he replied by saying: "Where is the statutory pay pause in that?" I hope that particular interviewer will have the opportunity of putting those questions to him again next Sunday in relation to this Bill. This again is a complete turnabout.

The complete lack of understanding by the Minister for Labour of what is actually contained in the Bill shocked me more than anything else. I am convinced he was quite unaware what this Bill really contains. I do not know when he first saw the Bill. By shaking his head and tut-tutting when Deputy Colley was speaking he denied that this Bill contained a wage freeze. When he was asked to indicate a passage of the Bill which referred to the national wage agreement or to the Labour Court he would not reply. I hope, when he replies to the debate, he will answer the points put to him by Deputy Colley.

Is this Bill the thin edge of the wedge? If the Government are not successful in achieving what we all hope will be achieved, a national wage agreement, is this the thin edge of the wedge? Will other sectors have a statutory pay freeze implemented? If not, I see this as discriminating against a section of the community.

The dangers to the economy of excessive wage increases at the present time have already been spelt out. When this party were in Government we set out the guidelines before wage negotiations took place. We stated quite clearly what the economy could contain. If we said 9 per cent, that was the limit at which any national wage agreement could be implemented. When we threatened to introduce legislation to implement this limit on the size of the wage agreement we were pilloried not only by the trade union movement but by members of this Government. However, the unions stated quite categorically that they did not like this type of legislation going on the Statute Book and they agreed to abide by the guidelines set out by the Government. That was the way we operated.

When we have a former trade union official, as Minister for Labour, standing over legislation of this kind it makes one realise the hypocrisy of this Minister for Labour. If he had any principles at all he would either resign his post or make some gesture. He has no intention of doing that because he is without principle. Deputy Colley referred to speeches made by the Tánaiste, Deputy Corish, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Garret FitzGerald and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Justin Keating, when in Opposition and their statements in relation to pay pauses. The difference is that we were restricted to the limit but they are coming in and saying that there will be no wage increase and nowhere in the Bill does it say that any wage increases will be tied to any national wage agreement, whatever figure comes from the employers and the employees. This is the real proof that we now have what is becoming a totalitarian Government, that a measure as important as this is so restricted that very few of the backbenchers of the biggest party in the House are able to get in and say what they feel about this legislation. It is so confined in time that we are unable to express our dissatisfaction with this Bill.

Debate adjourned.